Judgment:
S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. Rule. By consent. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the revision is taken up for final hearing.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.7.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge J.D. Bhokardan, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 100/- per month to respondent No. 2 herein.
4. Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, made it clear that he is not challenging this order with regard to the liability of such payment by Sahebrao being the father of petitioner No. 1 Bhagwan and father-in-law of petitioner No. 2 Laxmibai to Ranjana-respondent No. 1 being his second wife and minor son Ram-respondent No. 2. Mr. Chatterji drew my attention to the provisions of Section 18 and Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, the said Act). As per Section 18 of the said Act, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife during her life-time. As far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Bhagwan and Laxmibai are concerned, relevant s provision finds place in Section 20 of the said Act, which obliges that the children should maintain their 'aged' or 'infirm' parents. Explanation to Section 20 mentions clearly that the 'parents' includes a childless step-mother. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Chatterji's argument is that Bhagwan being the step-son is not liable to maintain respondent No. 1 Ranjanabai, who is aged 40 years and she is not 'aged' and/or 'infirm'. He contends that Section 20 imposes an obligation on children to maintain their aged and/or infirm parents and not as in the case of Ranjanabai, who is neither aged nor infirm. He fairly concedes the liability of his father Sahebrao to pay the aforesaid maintenance to his wife i Ranjanabai and son Ram.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are only challenging the aforesaid impugned order to the effect that petitioners, namely, Bhagan, Laxmibai and their minor son Dadasaheb, are not liable to pay in law, as per Section 20 of the said Act, the interim maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to Ranjanabai and Rs. 100/- per month to minor son Ram.
6. Mr. Chatterji also referred to Concise Oxford Dictionary, with regard to the meaning of 'aged' to mean, of the age of; aged very old; an aged man'. He has also : referred to the meaning of 'infirm' to mean, physically weak, especially through age; weak, irresolute (infirm of purpose). From the above, it is clear that the context in which the word 'aged' is used in Section 20(1) of the said Act, would obviously mean a very old person. This is clear from the words used in said section 'his or her i aged or infirm parent.........' that is to say, if the parents are very old or infirm, such a person would be included therein. Obviously, in this case respondent No. 1 Ranjanabai is not aged in the sense very old inasmuch as only 40 years old and admittedly, she is not infirm, in the sense bed-ridden or unable to move etc.
7. Mr. Shirufkar, learned Counsel contends that petitioner No. 1 being the step-son is liable to maintain his step-mother as per the Explanation to Section 20 of the Act. He also contended that said Sahebrao has manipulated the land record so as to avoid paying maintenance.
8. The short point involved in this revision is that, whether a step-son, step-daughter-in-law and step-grandson could be directed to pay maintenance for step-mother, who is aged only 40 years. The provisions of Section 20 of the said Act are very clear to the effect that liability of children to maintain arises only in case of 'aged' or 'infirm' parents. In this case, there is no dispute that Ranjana-respondent No. 1 is only 40 years of age which cannot be considered as an 'aged' person and she is not also an 'infirm' person. Therefore, ex-facie, the petitioner No 1 step-son, step-daughter-in-law and step-grandson are not liable to maintain a step-mother, who is neither 'aged' nor 'infirm' which is a prerequisite.
9. Obviously, petitioner No. 2 is concerned, she is only step-daughter-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is only a step-grandson are not in any way concerned and liable to maintain said Ranjanabai or her minor son.
10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 6.7.1998 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Bhagwan, Laxmibai and Dadasaheb are concerned. It is made clear that the order will subsist with regard to Sahebrao who is the husband of the said Ranjanabai respondent No. 1.
11. Accordingly the civil revision application is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute partly. No order as to costs.
Office to issue writ forthwith. Hamdast allowed.